agenda item 4b - aicpa€¦ · agenda item 4b page 4 of 42 proposed at-c section 105, concepts...
TRANSCRIPT
ASB Meeting
July 22-25, 2019
Prepared by: Judith Sherinsky (June 2019) Page 1 of 42
Agenda Item 4B
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements, of the Exposure Draft
Revisions to SSAE No. 18, Attestation Standards: Clarification and Recodification
(Marked from the Draft Presented at the May 20-23, 2019 ASB Meeting)
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
Introduction Introduction (Ref: par. .01)
.01 This section applies to engagements in which a CPA in the practice of
public accounting is engaged to issue, or does issue, a practitioner's
examination or, review, or agreed-upon procedures report on subject matter
or on an assertion about subject matter (hereinafter referred to as an
assertion) that is the responsibility of another party or an agreed-upon
procedures report. Paragraph .A1 provides examples of subject matter.
(Ref: par. .A1)
Revised to reflect the ASB’s conclusion that assertions are not applicable to AUP engagements
.02 The purpose of an examination or review attestation engagement is to
provide users of information with an opinion or conclusion regarding
subject matter or an assertion about the subject matter, as measured against
suitable and available criteria. (An examination engagement results in an
.A1 The subject matter of an attestation engagement may take many
forms, including the following:
a. Historical or Pprospective performance or condition, for
example, revenue in a future periodhistorical or prospective
financial information, performance measurements, and
backlog data
b. Physical characteristics, for example, narrative descriptions or
square footage of the dimensions of a facilityies
c. Historical events or conditions, for example, the price of a
market basket of goods on a certain date
d. Analyses, for example, break-even analyses
de. Systems and processes, for example, an entity’s system of
internal control
ef. Behavior, for example, an entity’s corporate governance,
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 2 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
opinion, and a review engagement results in a conclusion.) The purpose of
an agreed-upon procedures attestation engagement is to provide users of
information with the results of procedures performed by the practitioner on
subject matter. An agreed-upon procedures engagement results in findings.
compliance with laws and regulations, and human resource
practices
The subject matter may be as of a point in time or for a period of time.
.03 Attestation engagements include both those in which a party other
than the practitioner measures or evaluates the subject matter against the
criteria and those in which only the practitioner measures or evaluates the
subject matter against the criteria. This section may be applied to
attestation engagements in which only the practitioner has measured or
evaluated the subject matter against the criteria by adapting and
supplementing the attestation standards as necessary in the engagement
circumstances.
Deleted this paragraph because this draft will not specifically recognize engagements in which only the practitioner measures or evaluates the subject matter against the criteria.
.04.03 This section is not applicable to professional services for which
the AICPA has established other professional standards, for example,
services performed in accordance with the following: (Ref: par. .A2)
a. Statements on Auditing Standards
b. Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services
c. Statements on Standards for Tax Services
d. Statements on Standards for Consulting Services, including
litigation services that involve pending or potential legal or
regulatory proceedings before a trier of fact (Ref: par. .A3)
.A2 .A2 Because performance audits performed pursuant to
Government Auditing Standards do not require a practitioner’s
examination, review, or agreed-upon procedures report as described in
this section, this section does not apply to performance audits, unless
the practitioner engaged to conduct a performance audit is also engaged
to conduct an AICPA attestation engagement or issues such an
examination, review, or agreed-upon procedures report.
.A3 Examples of litigation services include the following
circumstances:
a. The service comprises being an expert witness.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 3 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
b. The service comprises being a trier of fact or acting on behalf of
one.
c. The practitioner's work under the rules of the proceedings is
subject to detailed analysis and challenge by each party to the
dispute.
d. The practitioner is engaged by an attorney to do work that will
be protected by the attorney's work product or attorney-client
privilege, and such work is not intended to be used for other
purposes.
.05.04 An attestation engagement may be part of a larger engagement, for
example, a feasibility study or business acquisition study that also includes
an examination of prospective financial information. In such
circumstances, the attestation standards apply only to the attestation
portion of the engagement.
Compliance With the Attestation Standards
.06.05 The "Compliance With Standards Rule" (ET sec. 1.310.001)* of the
AICPA Code of Professional Conduct requires members who perform
professional services to comply with standards promulgated by bodies
designated by the Council of the AICPA.
Relationship of Attestation Standards to Quality Control Standards Relationship of Attestation Standards to Quality Control
Standards (Ref: par. .06)
.07.06 Quality control systems, policies, and procedures are the
responsibility of the firm in conducting its attestation practice. Under QC
.A4 The nature and extent of a firm's quality control policies and
procedures depend on factors such as its size, the degree of operating
autonomy allowed its personnel and its practice offices, the nature of its
* All ET sections can be found in AICPA Professional Standards.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 4 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
section 10, A Firm's System of Quality Control,† the firm has an obligation
to establish and maintain a system of quality control to provide it with
reasonable assurance that1 (Ref: par..A4–.A6.)
a. the firm and its personnel comply with professional standards and
applicable legal and regulatory requirements and
b. practitioners' reports issued by the firm are appropriate in the
circumstances.
practice, its organization, and appropriate cost-benefit considerations.
.A5 Within the context of the firm's system of quality control,
engagement teams have a responsibility to implement quality control
procedures that are applicable to the attestation engagement and provide
the firm with relevant information to enable the functioning of that part
of the firm's quality control relating to independence.
.A6 Engagement teams are entitled to rely on the firm's system of
quality control, unless the engagement partner determines that it is
inappropriate to do so based on information provided by the firm or
other parties.
.08.07 Attestation standards relate to the conduct of individual attestation
engagements; quality control standards relate to the conduct of a firm's
attestation practice as a whole. Thus, attestation standards and quality
control standards are related, and the quality control policies and
procedures that a firm adopts may affect both the conduct of individual
attestation engagements and the conduct of a firm's attestation practice as
a whole. However, deficiencies in or instances of noncompliance with a
firm's quality control policies and procedures do not, in and of themselves,
indicate that a particular engagement was not performed in accordance
with the attestation standards.
Effective Date
† QC sections can be found in AICPA Professional Standards. 1 Paragraph .12 of QC section 10, A Firm’s System of Quality Control.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 5 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
.09.08 If issued as final, this section will be effective for practitioners'
reports dated on or after July 15, 2021.‡ Early implementation is not
permitted.
Objectives
.10.09 In conducting an attestation engagement, the overall objectives of
the practitioner are to do the following:
a. Apply the requirements relevant to the attestation engagement.
b. In an examination or review engagement, Rreport on the subject
matter or assertion, and in an agreed-upon procedures engagement,
report the practitioner’s procedures and findings. and
c. Ccommunicate as required by the applicable AT-C section, in
accordance with the results of the practitioner's procedures.
dc. Implement quality control procedures at the engagement level that
provide the practitioner with reasonable assurance that the
attestation engagement complies with professional standards and
applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
Definitions Definitions
.11.10 For purposes of the attestation standards, the following terms have
the meanings attributed as follows:
Assertion. Any declaration or set of declarations about whether the
subject matter is in accordance with (or based on) the criteria.
‡ This proposed effective date is provisional but will not be earlier than May 1, 2020.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 6 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
Attestation engagement. An examination, review, or agreed-upon
procedures engagement performed under the attestation standards
related to subject matter, or an examination or review engagement
related to an assertion, performed under the attestation standards that is
the responsibility of another party. The following are the three types of
attestation engagements:
a. Examination engagement. An attestation engagement in which the
practitioner obtains reasonable assurance. by obtaining sufficient
appropriate evidence about the measurement or evaluation of
subject matter against criteria in order to be able to draw reasonable
conclusions on which to base the practitioner's opinion about
whether the subject matter is in accordance with (or based on) the
criteria or the assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. (Ref:
par. .A7)
b. Review engagement. An attestation engagement in which the
practitioner obtains limited assurance. by obtaining sufficient
appropriate review evidence about the measurement or evaluation
of subject matter against criteria in order to express a conclusion
about whether any material modification should be made to the
subject matter in order for it be in accordance with (or based on) the
criteria or to the assertion in order for it to be fairly stated. (Ref:
par.A8–.A9.)
Examination Engagement (Ref: par. .10.11)
.A7 A7 The practitioner obtains the same level of assurance in an
examination engagement as the practitioner does in a financial
statement audit.
Review Engagement (Ref: par. .10.11)
The Nature, Timing, and Extent of Procedures
.A8 A8 Because the level of assurance obtained in a review
engagement is lower than in an examination engagement, the
procedures the practitioner performs in a review engagement vary in
nature and timing from, and are less in extent than, the procedures for
an examination. The primary differences between the procedures for a
review engagement and an examination include the following:
a. The emphasis placed on the nature of various procedures as a
source of evidence will likely differ, depending on the
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 7 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
engagement circumstances. For example, the practitioner may
judge it to be appropriate in the circumstances of a particular
review engagement to place relatively greater emphasis on
inquiries of the entity’s personnel and analytical procedures, and
relatively less emphasis, if any, on testing of controls and
obtaining evidence from external sources than may be the case
for an examination.
b. In a review engagement, the practitioner may select fewer items
to be subjected to the procedures or perform fewer procedures
(for example, performing only analytical procedures in
circumstances in which, in an examination, both analytical
procedures and other procedures would be performed).
c. In an examination, analytical procedures performed in response
to the attestation risk may involve developing expectations that
are sufficiently precise to identify material misstatements. In a
review engagement, analytical procedures may be designed to
test expectations regarding the direction of trends, relationships,
and ratios, rather than to identify misstatements with the level of
precision expected in an examination.
d. When significant fluctuations, relationships, or differences are
identified, appropriate evidence in a review engagement may be
obtained by making inquiries and considering responses
received in the light of known engagement circumstances.
e. When undertaking analytical procedures in a review
engagement, the practitioner may, for example, use data that is
more highly aggregated, such as quarterly data, rather than
monthly data, or use data that has not been subjected to
procedures to test its reliability to the same extent as it would be
for an examination.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 8 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
c. Agreed-upon procedures engagement. An attestation engagement
in which a practitioner performs specific procedures on subject
matter and reports the findings without providing an opinion or a
conclusion on it.
Attestation risk. In an examination or review engagement, the risk that
the practitioner expresses an inappropriate opinion or conclusion, as
applicable, when the subject matter or assertion is materially misstated.
(Ref: par. .A10–.A16 A9-A15)
.A9 A8. The practitioner obtains the same level of assurance in a
review engagement performed in accordance with the attestation
standards as the practitioner does in a review of financial statements.
Attestation Risk (Ref: par. .1011)
.A10 .A9 Attestation risk does not refer to the practitioner's business
risks, such as loss from litigation, adverse publicity, or other events
arising in connection with the subject matter or assertion reported on.
.A11 .A10 In general, attestation risk can be represented by the
following components, although not all of these components will
necessarily be present or significant for all engagements:
a. Risks that the practitioner does not directly influence, which
consist of
i. the susceptibility of the subject matter to a material
misstatement before consideration of any related controls
(inherent risk) and
i. the risk that a material misstatement that could occur in the
subject matter will not be prevented, or detected and
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 9 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
corrected, on a timely basis by the appropriate responsible
party's internal control (control risk)
b. Risk that the practitioner does directly influence, which consists
of the risk that the procedures to be performed by the practitioner
will not detect a material misstatement (detection risk)
.A12 .A12 The degree to which each of these components of attestation
risk is relevant to the engagement is affected by the engagement
circumstances, in particular, the following:
• The nature of the subject matter or assertion (For example, the
concept of control risk may be more useful when the subject
matter or assertion relates to the preparation of information about
an entity's performance than when it relates to information about
the existence of a physical condition.)
• The type of engagement being performed (For example, in a
review engagement, the practitioner may often decide to obtain
evidence by means other than tests of controls, in which case,
consideration of control risk may be less relevant than in an
examination engagement on the same subject matter or
assertion.)
.A13 .A12 The consideration of risks is a matter of professional
judgment, rather than a matter capable of precise measurement.
.A14 .A13 In an examination engagement, the practitioner reduces
attestation risk to an acceptably low level in the circumstances of the
engagement as the basis for the practitioner's opinion. Reducing
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 10 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
Criteria. In an examination or review engagement, the benchmarks used
to measure or evaluate the subject matter. (Ref: par. .A17,A16)
attestation risk to zero is not contemplated in an examination
engagement and, therefore, reasonable assurance is less than absolute
assurance as a result of factors such as the following:
• The use of selective testing
• The inherent limitations of internal control
• The fact that much of the evidence available to the practitioner
is persuasive, rather than conclusive
• The use of professional judgment in gathering and evaluating
evidence and forming conclusions based on that evidence
• In some cases, the characteristics of the subject matter when
evaluated or measured against the criteria
.A15 .A14 In a review engagement, attestation risk is greater than it is
in an examination engagement. The types of procedures performed to
obtain limited assurance are less extensive than they are in an
examination engagement.
.A16 .A15 Attestation risk is not applicable to an agreed-upon
procedures engagement because, in such engagements, the practitioner
performs specific procedures on subject matter or an assertion and
reports the findings without providing an opinion or conclusion.
Criteria (Ref: par. .10.11)
.A17 .A16 Suitable criteria are required for reasonably consistent
measurement or evaluation of subject matter. Without the frame of
reference provided by suitable criteria, any conclusion is open to
individual interpretation and misunderstanding. The suitability of
criteria is context sensitive; that is, it is determined in the context of the
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 11 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
Documentation completion date. The date on which the practitioner has
assembled for retention a complete and final set of documentation in
the engagement file.
Engagement circumstances. The broad context defining the particular
engagement, which includes the terms of the engagement; whether it is
an examination, review, or agreed-upon procedures engagement; the
characteristics of the subject matter; the criteria in an examination or
review engagement,; the information needs of the intended users;
relevant characteristics of the responsible party and, if different, the
engaging party and their environment; and other matters, for example,
events, transactions, conditions and practices, and relevant laws and
regulations, that may have a significant effect on the engagement.
Engagement documentation. The record of procedures performed,
relevant evidence obtained, and, in an examination or review
engagement, conclusions reached by the practitioner, or, in an agreed-
engagement circumstances. Even for the same subject matter, there can
be different criteria, which will yield a different measurement or
evaluation. For example, one party might select the number of customer
complaints resolved to the acknowledged satisfaction of the customer
as the criteria for evaluating the subject matter of customer satisfaction;
another party might select the number of repeat purchases in the three
months following the initial purchase. The suitability of criteria is not
affected by the level of assurance; that is, if criteria are unsuitable for
an examination engagement, they are also unsuitable for a review
engagement and vice versa.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 12 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
upon procedures engagement, findings of the practitioner. (Terms such
as working papers or workpapers are also sometimes used).
Engagement partner. The partner or other person in the firm who is
responsible for the attestation engagement and its performance and for
the practitioner's report that is issued on behalf of the firm and who,
when required, has the appropriate authority from a professional, legal,
or regulatory body. Engagement partner, partner, and firm refer to their
governmental equivalents when relevant.
Engagement team. All partners and staff performing the engagement
and any individuals engaged by the firm or a network firm who perform
attestation procedures on the engagement. This excludes a practitioner's
external specialist and engagement quality control reviewer engaged by
the firm or a network firm. The term engagement team also excludes
individuals within the client's internal audit function who provide direct
assistance.
Engaging party. The party that engages the practitioner to perform the
attestation engagement. (Ref: par. 0.A18)
Evidence. Information used by the practitioner in arriving at the opinion,
conclusion, or findings on which the practitioner's report is based.
Firm. A form of organization permitted by law or regulation whose
characteristics conform to resolutions of the Council of the AICPA and
that is engaged in the practice of public accounting.
Engaging Party (Ref: par. .10.11)
.A18 .A17 The engaging party, depending on the circumstances, may
be management or those charged with governance of the responsible
party, a governmental body or agency, the intended users, or another
third party.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 13 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
Fraud. An intentional act involving the use of deception that results in a
misstatement in the subject matter or the assertion.
General use. Use of a practitioner's report that is not restricted to
specified parties.
Internal audit function. A function of an entity that performs assurance
and consulting activities designed to evaluate and improve the
effectiveness of the entity's governance, risk management, and internal
control processes.
Interpretive publications. Interpretations of the Statements on
Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAEs), exhibits to SSAEs,
guidance on attestation engagements included in AICPA audit and
accounting guides, and AICPA attestation Statements of Position,║ to
the extent that those statements are applicable to such engagements.
Misstatement. In an examination or review engagement, a difference
between the measurement or evaluation of the subject matter and the
appropriate measurement or evaluation of the subject matter in
accordance with (or based on) the criteria. Misstatements can be
intentional or unintentional, qualitative or quantitative, and include
omissions. In certain engagements, a misstatement may be referred to
as a deviation, exception, or instance of noncompliance.
Network firm. A firm or other entity that belongs to a network, as
defined in the “Definitions” section (ET sec. 0.400) of the AICPA Code
of Professional Conduct.
║ Attestation Statements of Position are codified in the AUD sections in AICPA Professional Standards.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 14 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
Noncompliance with laws or regulations. Acts of omission or
commission by the entity, either intentional or unintentional, that are
contrary to the prevailing laws or regulations. Such acts include
transactions entered into by, or in the name of, the entity or on its behalf
by those charged with governance, management, or employees.
Noncompliance does not include personal misconduct (unrelated to the
subject matter) by those charged with governance, management, or
employees of the entity.
Other attestation publications. Publications other than interpretive
publications. These include AICPA attestation publications not defined
as interpretive publications; attestation articles in the Journal of
Accountancy and other professional journals; continuing professional
education programs and other instruction materials, textbooks,
guidebooks, attestation programs, and checklists; and other attestation
publications from state CPA societies, other organizations, and
individuals.
Other practitioner. An independent practitioner who is not a member of
the engagement team who performs work on information that will be
used as evidence by the practitioner performing the attestation
engagement. An other practitioner may be part of the practitioner's
firm, a network firm, or another firm.
Practitioner. The person or persons conducting the attestation
engagement, usually the engagement partner or other members of the
engagement team, or, as applicable, the firm. When an AT-C section
expressly intends that a requirement or responsibility be fulfilled by the
engagement partner, the term engagement partner, rather than
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 15 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
practitioner, is used. Engagement partner and firm are to be read as
referring to their governmental equivalents when relevant.
Practitioner’s specialist. An individual or organization possessing
expertise in a field other than accounting or attestation, whose work in
that field is used by the practitioner to assist the practitioner in obtaining
evidence for the service being provided. A practitioner's specialist may
be either a practitioner's internal specialist (who is a partner or staff,
including temporary staff, of the practitioner's firm or a network firm)
or a practitioner's external specialist. Partner and firm refer to their
governmental equivalents when relevant.
Professional judgment. The application of relevant training, knowledge,
and experience within the context provided by attestation and ethical
standards in making informed decisions about the courses of action that
are appropriate in the circumstances of the attestation engagement.
Professional skepticism. An attitude that includes a questioning mind,
being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to
fraud or error, and a critical assessment of evidence.
Reasonable assurance. A high, but not absolute, level of assurance.
Report release date. The date on which the practitioner grants the
engaging party permission to use the practitioner's report.
Responsible party. The party responsible for the subject matter, which
is a party other than the practitioner.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 16 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
Specified party. The intended users to whom use of the written
practitioner's report is limited.
Subject matter information. The outcome of the measurement or
evaluation of the subject matter against the criteria. (Ref: par.A19 )
Subject matter. The phenomenon that is measured or evaluated by
applying criteria. (Ref: par. .A19)
Subject Matter Information and Subject Matter (Ref: par. .11) .A19 .A19The outcome of the measurement or evaluation of a subject
matter is the information that results from applying the criteria to the
subject matter. For example:
• The financial statements (outcome) result from measuring an
entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows
(subject matter) by applying a financialreporting framework
(criteria).
• A statement about the effectiveness of internal control
(outcome) results from evaluating the effectiveness of an
entity’s internal control process (subject matter) by applying
relevant criteria.
• Entity-specific performance measures (outcome) result from
measuring various aspects of performance (subject matter) by
applying relevant measurement methodologies (criteria).
• A greenhouse gas statement (outcome) results from measuring
an entity’s greenhouse emissions (subject matter) by applying
recognition, measurement and presentation protocols (criteria).
• A statement about compliance (outcome) results from
evaluating the compliance of an entity (subject matter) with, for
example, law and regulation (criteria).
The term subject matter information is used to mean the outcome of the
measurement or evaluation of a subject matter against the criteria. It is
the subject matter information about which the practitioner gathers
sufficient appropriate evidence as the basis for the practitioner’s
conclusion
.12.11 For the purposes of the attestation standards, references to the Appropriate Party (Ref: par. .11.12)
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 17 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
appropriate party should be read hereafter as the responsible party, the
engaging party, or both, as appropriate. (Ref: par..A19A20)
.A20.A19 .A20 Management and governance structures vary by entity,
reflecting influences such as size and ownership characteristics. Such
diversity means that it is not possible for the attestation standards to
specify for all engagements the person or persons with whom the
practitioner is to interact regarding particular matters. For example, an
entity may be a segment of an organization and not a separate legal
entity. In such cases, identifying the appropriate management personnel
or those charged with governance with whom to communicate may
require the exercise of professional judgment.
Requirements
Conduct of an Attestation Engagement in Accordance With the
Attestation Standards
Conduct of an Attestation Engagement in Accordance With the
Attestation Standards
Complying With AT-C Sections That Are Relevant to the
Engagement
Complying With AT-C Sections That Are Relevant to the
Engagement (Ref: par. .14)
.12 When performing an attestation engagement, the practitioner should
comply with the following:
a. This section
b. AT-C section 205, Examination Engagements, AT-C section 210,
Review Engagements, or AT-C section 215, Agreed-Upon
Procedures Engagements, as applicable
c. Any subject matter AT-C section relevant to the engagement when
the AT-C section is in effect and the circumstances addressed by
the AT-C section exist
.13 The practitioner should not represent compliance with this or any
other AT-C section unless the practitioner has complied with the
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 18 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
requirements of this section and all other AT-C sections relevant to the
engagement.
.14 Reports issued by a practitioner in connection with services performed
under other professional standards should be written to be clearly
distinguishable from, and not confused with, reports issued under the
attestation standards. (Ref: par. .A20.A21–.A21.A22)
.A21.A20 . A21 A practitioner's report that merely excludes the phrase
"was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants" but is otherwise
similar to a practitioner's examination, review, or agreed-upon
procedures attestation report is an example of a practitioner's report that
is not clearly distinguishable from, and could be confused with, a report
issued under the attestation standards.
.A22.A21 .A22. Paragraph .14. does not prohibit combining reports
issued by a practitioner under the attestation standards with reports
issued under other professional standards.
Text of an AT-C Section Text of an AT-C Section (Ref: par. .15)
.15 The practitioner should have an understanding of the entire text of
each AT-C section that is relevant to the engagement being performed,
including its application and other explanatory material, to understand its
objectives and apply its requirements properly. (Ref: par. .A22.A23–
.A27.A28)
.A23.A22 .A23. The AT-C sections contain the objectives of the
practitioner and requirements designed to enable the practitioner to
meet those objectives. In addition, they contain related guidance in the
form of application and other explanatory material, introductory
material that provides context relevant to a proper understanding of the
section, and definitions.
.A24.A23 ,A24 Introductory material may include, as needed, such
matters as an explanation of the following:
• The purpose and scope of the AT-C section, including how the
AT-C section relates to other AT-C sections
• The subject matter of the AT-C section
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 19 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
• The respective responsibilities of the practitioner and others
regarding the subject matter and subject matter information of
the AT-C section
• The context in which the AT-C section is set
.A25.A24 .A25 The application and other explanatory material
provides further explanation of the requirements of an AT-C section and
guidance for carrying them out. In particular, it may
a. explain more precisely what a requirement means or is intended
to cover and
b. include examples of procedures that may be appropriate in the
circumstances.
Although such guidance does not, in itself, impose a requirement, it may
explain the proper application of the requirements of an AT-C section.
The application and other explanatory material may also provide
background information on matters addressed in an AT-C section. It
does not, however, limit or reduce the responsibility of the practitioner
to apply and comply with the requirements in applicable AT-C sections.
.A26.A25 .A26 The practitioner is required by paragraph .15.15 to
understand the application and other explanatory material. How the
practitioner applies the guidance in the engagement depends on the
exercise of professional judgment in the circumstances consistent with
the objective of the section. The words may, might, and could are used
to describe these actions and procedures.
.A27.A26 .A27 An AT-C section may include, in a separate section
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 20 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
under the heading "Definitions," a description of the meanings
attributed to certain terms for purposes of the AT-C section. These are
provided to assist in the consistent application and interpretation of the
AT-C section and are not intended to override definitions that may be
established for other purposes, whether in law, regulation, or otherwise.
Unless otherwise indicated, those terms will carry the same meanings
in all AT-C sections.
.A28.A27 .A28 Appendixes form part of the application and other
explanatory material. The purpose and intended use of an appendix are
explained in the body of the related AT-C section or within the title and
introduction of the appendix itself.
Complying With Relevant Requirements Complying With Relevant Requirements (Ref: par. .16)
.16 Subject to paragraph .20.21, the practitioner should comply with each
requirement of the AT-C sections that is relevant to the engagement being
performed, including any relevant subject matter AT-C section, unless, in
the circumstances of the engagement, either of the following applies:
a. The entire AT-C section is not relevant.
b. The requirement is not relevant because it is conditional, and the
condition does not exist.
.17 When a practitioner undertakes an attestation engagement for the
benefit of a government body or agency and agrees to follow specified
government standards, guides, procedures, statutes, rules, and regulations,
the practitioner should comply with those governmental requirements as
well as the applicable AT-C sections. (Ref: par. .A28.A29)
.A29.A28 .A29 In certain attestation engagements, the practitioner
may also be required to comply with other requirements, such as in law
or regulation, in addition to the attestation standards. The attestation
standards do not override law or regulation that governs the attestation
engagement. In the event that such law or regulation differs from
attestation standards, an attestation engagement conducted only in
accordance with law or regulation will not necessarily comply with the
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 21 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
attestation standards.
Practitioner’s Report Prescribed by Law or Regulation Practitioner’s Report Prescribed by Law or Regulation (Ref: par.
.18)
.18 If the practitioner is required by law or regulation to use a specific
layout, form, or wording of the practitioner's report and the prescribed form
of report is not acceptable or would cause a practitioner to make a statement
that the practitioner has no basis to make, the practitioner should reword the
prescribed form of report or attach an appropriately worded separate
practitioner's report. (Ref: par. .A29.A30)
.A30.A29 .A30 Some report forms can be made acceptable by inserting
additional wording to include the elements required by AT-C sections
205, 210, and 215.2 Some report forms required by law or regulation
can be made acceptable only by complete revision because the
prescribed language of the practitioner's report calls for statements by
the practitioner that are not consistent with the practitioner's function or
responsibility, for example, a report form that requests the practitioner
to "certify" the subject matter.
Defining Professional Requirements in the Attestation Standards
.19 The attestation standards use the following two categories of
professional requirements, identified by specific terms, to describe the
degree of responsibility they impose on practitioners:
• Unconditional requirements. The practitioner must comply with an
unconditional requirement in all cases in which such requirement is
relevant. The attestation standards use the word must to indicate an
unconditional requirement.
• Presumptively mandatory requirements. The practitioner must
comply with a presumptively mandatory requirement in all cases in
which such a requirement is relevant, except in rare circumstances
2 Paragraphs .62–.65 of AT-C section 205, Examination Engagements, paragraphs .46–.49 of AT-C section 210, Limited Assurance Engagements, and
paragraphs .3432–.33 of AT-C section 215, Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 22 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
discussed in paragraph .20.21. The attestation standards use the
word should to indicate a presumptively mandatory requirement.
Departure From a Relevant Requirement Departure From a Relevant Requirement (Ref: par .20 )
.20 In rare circumstances, the practitioner may judge it necessary to
depart from a relevant presumptively mandatory requirement. In such
circumstances, the practitioner should perform alternative procedures to
achieve the intent of that requirement. The need for the practitioner to
depart from a relevant presumptively mandatory requirement is expected
to arise only when the requirement is for a specific procedure to be
performed and, in the specific circumstances of the engagement, that
procedure would be ineffective in achieving the intent of the requirement.
(Ref: par. .A30.A31)
.A31.A30 A31 Paragraph .43.44 prescribes documentation
requirements when the circumstances described in paragraph .20.21
occur.
Interpretive Publications Interpretive Publications (Ref: par. .21 )
.21 The practitioner should consider applicable interpretive publications
in planning and performing the attestation engagement. (Ref: par.
.A31.A32.)
.A32.A31 .A32 Interpretive publications are not attestation standards.
Interpretive publications are recommendations on the application of the
attestation standards in specific circumstances, including engagements
for entities in specialized industries. An interpretive publication is
issued under the authority of the relevant senior technical committee
after all members of the committee have been provided an opportunity
to consider and comment on whether the proposed interpretive
publication is consistent with the attestation standards.
Other Attestation Publications Other Attestation Publications (Ref: par. .22)
.22 In applying the attestation guidance included in an other attestation
publication, the practitioner should, exercising professional judgment,
assess the relevance and appropriateness of such guidance to the
circumstances of the attestation engagement. (Ref: par..A32.A33–
.A34.A35)
.A33.A32 .A33 Other attestation publications have no authoritative
status; however, they may help the practitioner understand and apply
the attestation standards. The practitioner is not expected to be aware of
the full body of other attestation publications.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 23 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
.A34.A33 .A34 Although the practitioner determines the relevance of
these publications in accordance with paragraph .22.23, the practitioner
may presume that other attestation publications published by the
AICPA that have been reviewed by the AICPA Audit and Attest
Standards staff are appropriate. These other attestation publications are
listed in AT-C appendix B, "Other Attestation Publications."
.A35.A34 .A35 In determining whether an other attestation publication
that has not been reviewed by the AICPA Audit and Attest Standards
staff is appropriate to the circumstances of the attestation engagement,
the practitioner may wish to consider the degree to which the
publication is recognized as being helpful in understanding and
applying the attestation standards and the degree to which the issuer or
author is recognized as an authority in attestation matters.
Acceptance and Continuance
.23 The engagement partner should be satisfied that appropriate
procedures regarding the acceptance and continuance of client
relationships and attestation engagements have been followed and should
determine that conclusions reached in this regard are appropriate.
Preconditions for an Attestation Engagement Preconditions for an Attestation Engagement (Ref: par. .24–.25)
.24 The practitioner must be independent when performing an attestation
engagement in accordance with the attestation standards unless the
practitioner is required by law or regulation to accept the engagement and
report on the subject matter or assertion. (Ref: par..A35.A36–..A36.A37)
.A36.A35 .A36 The "Independence Standards for Engagements
Performed in Accordance With Statements on Standards for Attestation
Engagements" subtopic (ET sec. 1.297) of the “Independence Rule”
(ET sec. 1.200.001) establishes special requirements for independence
for services provided under the attestation standards. In addition, the
"Conceptual Framework for Independence" interpretation (ET sec.
1.210.010) under the “Independence Rule” discusses threats to
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 24 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
independence not specifically detailed elsewhere.
.A37.A36 .A37 When a member performs nonattest services for an
attest client (for example, preparation of the subject matter
information), self-review, management participation, or advocacy
threats to the member’s compliance with the “Independence Rule” may
exist. When significant independence threats exist during the period of
the attestation engagement or the period covered by the attestation
engagement, independence will be impaired unless the threats are
reduced to an acceptable level and any requirements included in the
interpretations under the “Nonattest Services” subtopic (ET sec. 1.295)
of the “Independence Rule” have been met.
.25 In order to establish that the preconditions for an attestation
engagement are present, the practitioner should, on the basis of a
preliminary knowledge of the engagement circumstances and discussion
with the appropriate party, determine the following:
a. Whether the roles and responsibilities of the appropriate parties are
suitable in the circumstances (Ref: par. .A37.A38–.A38A39)
b. Whether the responsible party is a party other than the practitioner
and takes responsibility for the subject matter being in accordance
with (or based on) the criteria, or if only the practitioner has
measured or evaluated the subject matter against the criteria, takes
Roles and Responsibilities (Ref: par. .25.)
.A38.A37 .A38 All attestation engagements have an engaging party, a
responsible party, the practitioner, and intended users. In some
attestation engagements, the engaging party is different from the
responsible party.
.A39.A38 A39 The responsible party may acknowledge its
responsibility for the subject matter or for the written assertion as it
relates to the objective of the engagement in a number of ways, for
example, in an engagement letter, a representation letter, or the
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 25 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
responsibility for the subject matter. (Ref: par. .A38.A39–
.A39.A40)
c. Whether the engagement exhibits all the following characteristics:
i. The subject matter is appropriate. (Ref: par. .A40.A41–
.A45.A46)
presentation of the subject matter, including the notes thereto, or the
written assertion. Examples of other evidence of the responsible party's
responsibility for the subject matter include reference to legislation, a
regulation, or a contract.
.A40.A39 .A40 Evidence that the appropriate relationship exists with
respect to responsibility for the subject matter may be obtained through
an acknowledgment provided by the responsible party. Such an
acknowledgment also establishes a basis for a common understanding
of the responsibilities of the responsible party and the practitioner. A
written acknowledgment is the most appropriate form of documenting
the responsible party’s understanding. In the absence of a written
acknowledgment of responsibility, it may still be appropriate for the
practitioner to accept the engagement if, for example, other sources,
such as legislation or a contract, indicate responsibility. In other cases,
it may be appropriate to decline the engagement depending on the
circumstances or disclose the circumstances in the attestation report.
(Ref: par. .25b)
Appropriateness of Subject Matter (Ref: par. .25ci)
.A41.A40 .A41 An element of the appropriateness of subject matter is
the existence of a reasonable basis for measuring or evaluating the
subject matter. What constitutes a reasonable basis will depend on the
nature of the subject matter and other engagement circumstances.
.A42.A41 .A42 An appropriate subject matter
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 26 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
a. is identifiable and capable of consistent measurement or
evaluation against the criteria and
b. can be subjected to procedures for obtaining sufficient
appropriate evidence to support an opinion, conclusion, or
findings, as appropriate.
.A43.A42 .A43 If the subject matter is not appropriate for an
examination engagement, it also is not appropriate for a review
engagement.
.A44.A43 .A44 Different subject matters have different characteristics,
including the degree to which information about them is qualitative
versus quantitative, objective versus subjective, historical versus
prospective, and relates to a point in time or covers a period of time.
Such characteristics affect the following:
a. Precision with which the subject matter can be measured or
evaluated against criteria
b. The persuasiveness of available evidence
.A45.A44 .A45 Identifying such characteristics and considering their
effects assists the practitioner when assessing the appropriateness of the
subject matter and also in determining the content of the practitioner's
report.
.A46.A45 .A46 In some cases, the attestation engagement may relate
to only one part of a broader subject matter. For example, the
practitioner may be engaged to examine one aspect of an entity's
contribution to sustainable development, such as the programs run by
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 27 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
ii. The criteria to be applied in the preparation and evaluation of
the subject matter are suitable and will be available to the
intended users. (Ref: par. .A46.A47–.A56.A57)
the entity that have positive environmental outcomes, and may be aware
that the practitioner has not been engaged to examine more significant
programs with less favorable outcomes. In such cases, in determining
whether the engagement exhibits the characteristic of having an
appropriate subject matter, it may be appropriate for the practitioner to
consider whether information about the aspect that the practitioner is
asked to examine is likely to meet the information needs of intended
users.
Suitable and Available Criteria (Ref: par. .25cii)
.A47.A46 .A47 Suitable criteria exhibit all the following
characteristics:
• Relevance. Criteria are relevant to the subject matter.
• Objectivity. Criteria are free from bias.
• Measurability. Criteria permit reasonably consistent
measurements, qualitative or quantitative, of subject matter.
• Completeness. Criteria are complete when subject matter
prepared in accordance with them does not omit relevant factors
that could reasonably be expected to affect decisions of the
intended users made on the basis of that subject matter.
The relative importance of each characteristic to a particular
engagement is a matter of professional judgment.
.A48.A47 .A48 Criteria can be developed in a variety of ways. For
example, they may be
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 28 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
• embodied in laws or regulations.
• issued by authorized or recognized bodies of experts that follow
a transparent due process.
• developed collectively by a group that does not follow a
transparent due process.
• published in scholarly journals or books.
• developed for sale on a proprietary basis.
• specifically designed for the purpose of measuring, or
evaluating, or disclosing the subject matter or assertion in the
particular circumstances of the engagement.
How criteria are developed may affect the work that the practitioner
carries out to assess their suitability.
.A49.A48 .A49 Criteria that are established or developed by groups
composed of experts that follow due process procedures, including
exposure of the proposed criteria for public comment, are ordinarily
considered suitable. Criteria promulgated by a body designated by the
Council of the AICPA under the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct
are, by definition, considered to be suitable.
.A50.A49 .A50 In some cases, laws or regulations prescribe the criteria
to be used for the engagement. In the absence of indications to the
contrary, such criteria are presumed to be suitable.
.A51.A50 .A51 Criteria may be established or developed by the
engaging party, the responsible party, industry associations, or other
groups that do not follow due process procedures or do not as clearly
represent the public interest. The practitioner's determination of
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 29 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
whether such criteria are suitable is based on the characteristics
described in paragraph .A46.A48.
.A52.A51 .A52 Regardless of who establishes or develops the criteria,
the responsible party or the engaging party is responsible for selecting
the criteria, and the engaging party is responsible for determining that
such criteria are appropriate for its purposes.
.A53.A52 .A53 Some criteria may be suitable for only a limited
number of parties who either participated in their establishment or can
be presumed to have an adequate understanding of the criteria. For
example, criteria set forth in a lease agreement for override payments
may be suitable only for reporting to the parties to the agreement
because of the likelihood that such criteria would be misunderstood or
misinterpreted by parties other than those who have specifically agreed
to the criteria. Such criteria can be agreed upon directly by the parties
or through a designated representative.
.A54.A53 .A54 Even when established criteria exist for a subject
matter, specific users may agree to other criteria for their specific
purposes. For example, various frameworks can be used as established
criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of internal control. Specific
users may, however, develop a more detailed set of criteria that meet
their specific information needs.
.A55.A54 .A55 If criteria are specifically designed for the purpose of
measuring, evaluating, or disclosing the subject matter or assertion in
the particular circumstances of the engagement, they are not suitable if
they result in subject matter information, an assertion, or a practitioner's
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 30 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
report that is misleading to the intended users. It is desirable for the
intended users or the engaging party to acknowledge that specifically
developed criteria are suitable for the intended users' purposes. The
absence of such an acknowledgment may affect what is to be done to
assess the suitability of the criteria and the information provided about
the criteria in the report.
.A56.A55 .A56 Criteria need to be available to the intended users to
allow them to understand how the subject matter has been measured or
evaluated. Criteria are made available to the intended users in one or
more of the following ways:
a. Publicly
b. Through inclusion in a clear manner in the presentation of the
subject matter
c. Through inclusion in a clear manner in the practitioner's report
d. By general understanding, for example, the criterion for
measuring time in hours and minutes
e. Only to specified parties, for example, terms of a contract or
criteria issued by an industry association that are available only
to those in the industry
.A57.A56 .A57 When criteria are available only to specified parties,
AT-C sections 205 and, 210, and 215 require a statement restricting the
use of the practitioner's report.3
Access to Evidence (Ref: par. .25ciii)
3 Paragraph .63b of AT-C section 205 and paragraph .33c of AT-C section 210.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 31 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
iii. The practitioner expects to be able to obtain the evidence needed to
arrive at the practitioner's opinion, conclusion, or findings,
including (Ref: par. .A57.A58–.A58.A59)
(1) access to all information of which the responsible party is aware
that is relevant to the measurement, evaluation, or disclosure of
the subject matter;
(2) access to additional information that the practitioner may
request from the responsible party for the purpose of the
engagement; and
(3) unrestricted access to persons within the appropriate party from
whom the practitioner determines it necessary to obtain
evidence.
iv. The practitioner's opinion, conclusion, or findings will be included
in a written practitioner's report in a form appropriate to the
engagement.
.A58.A57 .A58 The nature of the relationship between the responsible
party and, if different, the engaging party, may affect the practitioner's
ability to access records, documentation, and other information the
practitioner may require as evidence to arrive at the practitioner's
opinion, conclusion, or findings. Therefore, the nature of that
relationship may be a relevant consideration when determining whether
to accept the engagement.
.A59.A58 .A59 The quantity or quality of available evidence is
affected by both of the following:
a. The characteristics of the subject matter, for example, less
objective evidence might be expected when the subject matter is
future-oriented, rather than historical
b. Other circumstances, such as when evidence that could
reasonably be expected to exist is not available, for example,
because of the timing of the practitioner's appointment, an
entity's document retention policy, inadequate information
systems, or a restriction imposed by the responsible or engaging
party
.26 If the preconditions in paragraphs .24.25–.25.26 are not present, the
practitioner should discuss the matter with the engaging party to attempt to
resolve the issue.
.27 The practitioner should accept an attestation engagement only when
the following apply:
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 32 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
a. The practitioner has no reason to believe that relevant ethical
requirements, including independence, will not be satisfied.
b. The practitioner is satisfied that those persons who are to perform
the engagement collectively have the appropriate competence and
capabilities (see also paragraph .31.32).
c. The practitioner has determined that the engagement to be
performed meets all the preconditions for an attestation engagement
(see also paragraphs .24.25–.25.26).
d. The practitioner has reached a common understanding with the
engaging party of the terms of the engagement, including the
practitioner's reporting responsibilities.
.28 If it is discovered after the engagement has been accepted that one or
more of the preconditions for an attestation engagement are not present,
the practitioner should discuss the matter with the appropriate party and
should determine the following:
a. Whether the matter can be resolved
b. Whether it is appropriate to continue with the engagement
c. If the matter cannot be resolved but it is still appropriate to continue
with the engagement, whether to communicate the matter in the
practitioner’s report, and if the matter is to be communicated in the
practitioner’s report, how to do so
Acceptance of a Change in the Terms of the Engagement Acceptance of a Change in the Terms of the Engagement (Ref:
par. .29)
.29 The practitioner should not agree to a change in the terms of the
engagement when no reasonable justification for doing so exists. If a
change in the terms of the engagement is made, the practitioner should not
disregard evidence that was obtained prior to the change. (Ref: par.
.A60.A59 .A60 A change in circumstances that affects the
requirements of the responsible party or, if different, the engaging party,
or a misunderstanding concerning the nature of the engagement
originally requested, may be considered reasonable justification for
requesting a change in the engagement, for example, from an attestation
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 33 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
.A59.A60–.A60.A61) engagement to a consulting engagement or from an examination
engagement to a review engagement. A change may not be considered
reasonable if it appears that the change relates to information that is
incorrect, incomplete, or otherwise unsatisfactory. An example of such
a circumstance is a request to change the engagement from an
examination to a review engagement to avoid a modified opinion or a
disclaimer of opinion in a situation in which the practitioner is unable
to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence regarding the subject matter.
.A61.A60 .A61 If the practitioner and the engaging party are unable to
agree to a change in the terms of the engagement and the practitioner is
not permitted to continue the original engagement, the practitioner may
withdraw from the engagement when possible under applicable laws
and regulations.
.30 If the practitioner concludes, based on the practitioner's professional
judgment, that there is reasonable justification to change the terms of the
engagement from the original level of service that the practitioner was
engaged to perform to a lower level of service, for example, from an
examination to a review engagement, and if the practitioner complies with
the AT-C sections applicable to the lower level of service, the practitioner
should issue an appropriate practitioner's report on the lower level of
service. The report should not include reference to
a. the original engagement,
b. any procedures that may have been performed, or
c. scope limitations that resulted in the changed engagement.
Using the Work of an Other Practitioner Using the Work of an Other Practitioner (Ref: par. .31)
.31 When the practitioner expects to use the work of an other practitioner, .A62.A61 .A62 The practitioner is responsible for
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 34 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
the practitioner should do the following: (Ref: par. .A61.A62–.A62.A63 )
a. Obtain an understanding of whether the other practitioner
understands and will comply with the ethical requirements that are
relevant to the engagement and, in particular, is independent.
b. Obtain an understanding of the other practitioner's professional
competence.
c. Communicate clearly with the other practitioner about the scope
and timing of the other practitioner's work and findings.
d. If assuming responsibility for the work of the other practitioner, be
involved in the work of the other practitioner.
e. Evaluate whether the other practitioner's work is adequate for the
practitioner's purposes.
f. Determine whether to make reference to the other practitioner in the
practitioner's report.
a. the direction, supervision, and performance of the engagement in
compliance with professional standards, applicable regulatory and
legal requirements, and the firm's policies and procedures and
b. determining whether the practitioner's report that is issued is
appropriate in the circumstances.
The practitioner may, however, use the work of other practitioners to
obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to express an opinion,
conclusion, or findings on the subject matter or assertion.
.A63.A62 .A63 The engagement partner may decide to assume
responsibility for the work of the other practitioner or make reference
to the other practitioner in the practitioner's report. Regardless of
whether the engagement partner decides to assume responsibility or
make reference, the practitioner is required to communicate clearly with
the other practitioner and evaluate whether the other practitioner's work
is adequate for the purposes of the engagement. The nature, timing, and
extent of this involvement are affected by the practitioner's
understanding of the other practitioner, such as previous experience
with, or knowledge of, the other practitioner and the degree to which
the engagement team and the other practitioner are subject to common
quality control policies and procedures.
Quality Control Quality Control
Assignment of the Engagement Team and the Practitioner’s Specialists Assignment of the Engagement Team and the Practitioner’s
Specialists (Ref: par. .32a–bi)
.32 The engagement partner should be satisfied that the following apply:
.A64.A63 .A64 The practitioner may obtain knowledge about the
specific subject matter to which the procedures are to be applied through
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 35 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
a. The engagement team, and any practitioner's external specialists,
collectively, have the appropriate competence, including
knowledge of the subject matter, and capabilities to (Ref: par.
.A63.A64–.A64.A65 )
i. perform the engagement in accordance with professional
standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements and
ii. enable the issuance of a practitioner's report that is appropriate
in the circumstances.
b. To an extent that is sufficient to accept responsibility for the opinion
or, conclusion, or findings on the subject matter or assertion, the
engagement team will be able to be involved in the work of
i. a practitioner's external specialist, when the work of that
specialist is to be used, and (Ref: par..A65.A66)
ii. an other practitioner, when the work of that practitioner is to be
used.
c. Those involved in the engagement have been informed of their
responsibilities, including the objectives of the procedures they are
to perform and matters that may affect the nature, timing, and extent
of such procedures.
d. Engagement team members have been directed to bring to the
engagement partner's attention significant questions raised during
the engagement so that their significance may be assessed.
formal or continuing education, practical experience, or consultation
with others.
.A65.A64 .A65 When considering the appropriate competence and
capabilities expected of those involved in the engagement, the
engagement partner may take into consideration such matters as their
• understanding of, and practical experience with, engagements of
a similar nature and complexity through appropriate training and
participation.
• understanding of professional standards and applicable legal and
regulatory requirements.
• technical expertise, including expertise with relevant IT and
specialized areas relevant to the subject matter.
• knowledge of relevant industries in which the entity operates.
• ability to apply professional judgment.
• understanding of the firm's quality control policies and
procedures.
.A66.A65 .A66 Some of the attestation work may be performed by a
multidisciplinary team that includes one or more practitioner's
specialists. For example, in an examination engagement, a practitioner's
specialist may be needed to assist the practitioner in obtaining an
understanding of the subject matter and other engagement
circumstances or in assessing or responding to the risk of material
misstatement.
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 36 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
Leadership Responsibilities for Quality in Attestation Engagements Leadership Responsibilities for Quality in Attestation Engagements
(Ref: par. .33c)
.33 The engagement partner should take responsibility for the overall
quality on each attestation engagement. This includes responsibility for the
following:
a. Appropriate procedures being performed regarding the acceptance
and continuance of client relationships and engagements
b. The engagement being planned and performed (including
appropriate direction and supervision) to comply with professional
standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements
c. Reviews being performed in accordance with the firm's review
policies and procedures and reviewing the engagement
documentation on or before the date of the practitioner's report (Ref:
par. .A66.A67)
d. Appropriate engagement documentation being maintained to
provide evidence of achievement of the practitioner's objectives and
that the engagement was performed in accordance with the
attestation standards and relevant legal and regulatory requirements
e. Appropriate consultation being undertaken by the engagement team on difficult or
contentious matters
.A67.A66 .A67 Under QC section 10, the firm's review responsibility
policies and procedures are determined on the basis that suitably
experienced team members review the work of other team members.
The engagement partner may delegate part of the review responsibility
to other members of the engagement team in accordance with the firm's
system of quality control.
.34 Throughout the engagement, the engagement partner should remain
alert, through observation and making inquiries as necessary, for
evidence of noncompliance with relevant ethical requirements by
members of the engagement team. If matters come to the engagement
partner’s attention through the firm’s system of quality control or
otherwise that indicate that members of the engagement team have not
complied with relevant ethical requirements, the engagement partner, in
consultation with others in the firm, should determine the appropriate
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 37 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
action.
.35 The engagement partner should consider the results of the firm’s
monitoring process as evidenced in the latest information circulated by
the firm and, if applicable, other network firms and whether deficiencies
noted in that information may affect the engagement.
Engagement Documentation Engagement Documentation (Ref: par. .36–.37 )
.36 The practitioner should prepare engagement documentation on a
timely basis. (Ref: par. .A67.A68)
.A68.A67 .A68 Documentation prepared at the time work is performed
or shortly thereafter is likely to be more accurate than documentation
prepared at a much later time.
.37 The practitioner should assemble the engagement documentation in
an engagement file and complete the administrative process of
assembling the final engagement file no later than 60 days following the
practitioner's report release date. (Ref: par. .A68.A69)
.A69.A68 .A69 The completion of the assembly of the final
engagement file is an administrative process that does not involve the
performance of new procedures or the drawing of new conclusions.
Changes may, however, be made to the documentation during the final
assembly process if they are administrative in nature. Examples of such
changes include the following:
• Deleting or discarding superseded documentation
• Sorting, collating, and cross-referencing working papers
• Signing off on completion checklists relating to the file
assembly process
• Documenting evidence that the practitioner has obtained,
discussed, and agreed with the relevant members of the
engagement team before the date of the practitioner's report
• Adding information received after the date of the report, for
example, an original confirmation that was previously
communicated electronically
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 38 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
.38 After the documentation completion date, the practitioner should not
delete or discard documentation of any nature before the end of its
retention period.
.39 If the practitioner finds it necessary to amend existing engagement
documentation or add new engagement documentation after the
documentation completion date, the practitioner should, regardless of the
nature of the amendments or additions, document
a. the specific reasons for making the amendments or additions and
b. when, and by whom, they were made and reviewed.
.40 Engagement documentation is the property of the practitioner, and
some jurisdictions recognize this right of ownership in their statutes. The
practitioner should adopt reasonable procedures to retain engagement
documentation for a period of time sufficient to meet the needs of the
practitioner and to satisfy any applicable legal or regulatory requirements
for records retention.
.41 Because engagement documentation often contains confidential
information, the practitioner should adopt reasonable procedures to
maintain the confidentiality of that information.
.42 The practitioner should also adopt reasonable procedures to prevent
unauthorized access to engagement documentation.
.43 If, in rare circumstances, the practitioner judges it necessary to depart
from a relevant presumptively mandatory requirement, the practitioner
should document the justification for the departure and how the alternative
procedures performed in the circumstances were sufficient to achieve the
intent of that requirement. (See paragraph .20.21)
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 39 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
Engagement Quality Control Review Engagement Quality Control Review (Ref: par. .44)
.44 For those engagements, if any, for which the firm has determined that
an engagement quality control review is required, the following should be
done: (Ref: par. .A69.A70)
a. The engagement partner should take responsibility for discussing
with the engagement quality control reviewer significant findings
or issues arising during the engagement, including those identified
during the engagement quality control review, and should not
release the practitioner's report until completion of the engagement
quality control review.
b. The engagement quality control reviewer should perform an
objective evaluation of the significant judgments made by the
engagement team and the conclusions reached in formulating the
report. This evaluation should include the following:
i. Discussion of significant findings or issues with the
engagement partner
ii. Reading the proposed report and when applicable, the subject
matter information and anything additional information
included in a document containing the subject matter and the
practitioner’s report thereon attached to it
iii. Reading selected engagement documentation relating to the
significant judgments the engagement team made and the
related decisions it reached
iv. Evaluation of the conclusions reached in formulating the report
and consideration of whether the proposed report is appropriate
.A70.A69 .A70 Other matters that may be considered in an engagement
quality control review include the following:
a. The engagement team's evaluation of the firm's independence
in relation to the engagement
b. Whether appropriate consultation has taken place on matters
involving differences of opinion or other difficult or
contentious matters and the conclusions arising from those
consultations
c. Whether engagement documentation selected for review
reflects the work performed in relation to the significant
judgments and supports the conclusions reached
Professional Skepticism and Professional Judgment Professional Skepticism and Professional Judgment
Professional Skepticism Professional Skepticism (Ref: par. .45)
.45 The practitioner should plan and perform an attestation engagement .A71.A70 .A71 Professional skepticism includes being alert to matters
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 40 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
with professional skepticism. (Ref: par. .A70.A71-.A72.A73 ) such as the following:
• Evidence that contradicts other evidence obtained
• Information that brings into question the reliability of documents
and responses to inquiries to be used as evidence
• Circumstances that may indicate fraud
• Circumstances that suggest the need for procedures in addition
to those required by relevant AT-C sections
.A72.A71 .A72 Professional skepticism is necessary to the critical
assessment of evidence. This includes questioning contradictory
evidence and the reliability of documents and responses to inquiries and
other information obtained from the appropriate party. It also includes
consideration of the sufficiency and appropriateness of evidence
obtained in light of the circumstances.
.A73.A72 .A73 The practitioner neither assumes that the appropriate
party is dishonest nor assumes unquestioned honesty. The practitioner
cannot be expected to disregard past experience of the honesty and
integrity of those who provide evidence. Nevertheless, a belief that
those who provide evidence are honest and have integrity does not
relieve the practitioner of the need to maintain professional skepticism
or allow the practitioner to be satisfied with less than sufficient
appropriate evidence for the service being provided.
.46 Unless the practitioner has reason to believe the contrary, the
practitioner may accept records and documents as genuine. If conditions
identified during the attestation engagement cause the practitioner to
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 41 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
believe that a document may not be authentic or that terms in a document
have been modified but not disclosed to the practitioner, the practitioner
should investigate further.
Professional Judgment Professional Judgment (Ref: par. .47)
.47 The practitioner should exercise professional judgment in planning
and performing an attestation engagement. (Ref: par. .A73.A74-
.A78.A79)
.A74.A73 .A74 Professional judgment is essential to the proper
conduct of an attestation engagement. This is because interpretation of
relevant ethical requirements and relevant AT-C sections and the
informed decisions required throughout the engagement cannot be
made without the application of relevant knowledge and experience to
the facts and circumstances.
.A75.A74 .A75 For examination and review engagements, professional
judgment is necessary regarding decisions about the following matters:
• Materiality and attestation risk
• The nature, timing, and extent of procedures used to meet the
requirements of relevant AT-C sections and gather evidence
• Evaluating whether sufficient appropriate evidence for the
service being provided has been obtained and whether more
needs to be done to achieve the objectives of this section, AT-C
section 205, or AT-C section 210, and any relevant subject-
matter-specific AT-C sections and thereby the overall
objectives of the practitioner
• The evaluation of the responsible party's judgments in applying
the criteria
AT-C 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements (Marked from May 2019 ASB Meeting)
ASB Meeting, July 22-25, 2019
Agenda Item 4B Page 42 of 42
Proposed AT-C Section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements
Introduction, Objectives, Definitions, and Requirements Application and Other Explanatory Material
• The drawing of conclusions based on the evidence obtained, for
example, assessing the reasonableness of the evaluation or
measurement of the subject matter or an assertion
.A76.A75 .A76 The distinguishing feature of professional judgment
expected of a practitioner is that such judgment is exercised based on
competencies necessary to achieve reasonable judgments developed by
the practitioner through relevant training, knowledge, and experience.
.A77.A76 .A77 The exercise of professional judgment in any particular
case is based on the facts and circumstances that are known by the
practitioner. Consultation on difficult or contentious matters during the
course of the engagement, both within the engagement team and
between the engagement team and others at the appropriate level within
or outside the firm, assist the practitioner in making informed and
reasonable judgments.
.A78.A77 .A78 Professional judgment can be evaluated based on
whether the judgment reached reflects a competent application of the
attestation standards and measurement or evaluation principles and is
appropriate in light of, and consistent with, the facts and circumstances
that were known to the practitioner up to the date of the practitioner's
report.
.A79.A78 .A79 The requirement to exercise professional judgment
applies throughout the engagement. Professional judgment also needs
to be appropriately documented as required by AT-C sections 205 and
210.